Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Amudhavalli on 26 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.477 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.M.A.No.477 of 2021
The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Salem) Ltd.
Regional Office, Dharmapuri. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Amudhavalli
2.Minor Madhumitha
(Minor represented by her next
friend and mother Amudhavalli)
3.Kuppammal ... Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 07.01.2014
made in M.C.O.P.No.315 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Special District Court, Krishnagiri.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Venkatachalam
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.477 of 2021
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the
appellant/Transport Corporation to set aside the award dated 07.01.2014
made in M.C.O.P.No.315 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Special District Court, Krishnagiri.
2.The appellant/Transport Corporation is the respondent in
M.C.O.P.No.315 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special District Court, Krishnagiri. The respondents filed the said claim
petition claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the death of
one Shivaraj, who died in the accident that took place on 28.01.2009.
3.According to the respondents, on the date of accident i.e., on
28.01.2009 at 10.10 p.m., while the deceased Shivaraj was proceeding in a
Hero Honda motorcycle as a pillion rider, which was rode by one Rajendiran,
from Krishnagiri to Nekkundhi, on the extreme left side of the road, opposite
to Avadhanapatti Mariamman koil, near tunnel, the driver of the bus
belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation, drove the same in a rash
and negligent manner without light, dashed against the motorcycle in which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.477 of 2021
the said Shivaraj travelled as pillion rider and caused the accident. In the
accident, the said Shivaraj sustained fatal injuries and died on the way to
hospital. Hence, the respondents have filed the above claim petition claiming
compensation against the appellant/Transport Corporation.
4.The appellant/Transport Corporation filed counter statement denying
the averments made in the claim petition and stated that the driver of the bus
drove the bus with due care and caution and he was not rash and negligent at
the time of accident. The rider of the motorcycle crossed the road from left
side to right side without noticing the vehicles coming on the main road and
suddenly entered into the main road without giving any horn and without
wearing helmet. Due to high speed, the rider of the motorcycle hit against the
bus and invited the accident. The rider, owner and insurer of the motorcycle
were not made as parties to the claim petition and therefore, the claim petition
is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties. Therefore, the appellant is not
liable to pay any compensation to the respondents. In any event, the
compensation claimed by the respondents is excessive and prayed for
dismissal of the claim petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.477 of 2021
5.Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent, wife of the deceased,
examined herself as P.W.1, one Madhevan, eye-witness to the accident was
examined as P.W.2, Mr.Mugilan, Junior Assistant in the Block Development
Office, Krishnagiri, was examined as P.W.3 and ten documents were marked
as Exs.P1 to P10. The appellant/Transport Corporation examined one
S.Ranganathan, the driver of the bus as R.W.1 and did not file any document.
6.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by
the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation and
directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.11,59,000/- as compensation to the
respondents.
7.To set aside the said award dated 07.01.2014 made in
M.C.O.P.No.315 of 2013, the appellant/Transport Corporation has come out
with the present appeal.
8.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport
Corporation contended that mere registration of F.I.R. against the driver of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.477 of 2021
the bus cannot be a ground for fixing negligence on him. The Tribunal failed
to note that P.W.1, who is wife of the deceased, is not an eye-witness to the
accident. The appellant examined the driver of the bus as R.W.1, who
deposed that he drove the bus slowly with care and caution, the rider of the
motorcycle alone suddenly crossed the road, hit against the bus and invited
the accident. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence of the driver of
the bus as R.W.1, erroneously relied on the contents of F.I.R. and fixed entire
negligence on the driver of the bus. The learned counsel further contended
that the respondents have not filed any valid document to prove the age,
avocation and income of the deceased. The Tribunal erred in granting
enhancement towards future prospects and prayed for setting aside the award
of the Tribunal.
9.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport
Corporation and perused the entire materials on record.
10.It is the case of the respondents that while the deceased Shivaraj
was travelling as pillion rider in the motorcycle, the driver of the bus
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.477 of 2021
belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation drove the same in a rash
and negligent manner, dashed against the said Shivaraj and caused the
accident. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the said Shivaraj died
on the way to hospital. In support of their case, the 1 st respondent, wife of the
deceased examined herself as P.W.1, eye-witness to the accident was
examined as P.W.2 and marked F.I.R., which was registered against the driver
of the bus as Ex.P1. On the other hand, it is the case of the
appellant/Transport Corporation that the rider of the motorcycle alone rode
the same in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the bus and invited
the accident. To prove their case, they examined the driver of the bus as
R.W.1. The contention of the appellant that Tribunal merely relying on F.I.R.,
fixed entire negligence on the driver of the bus is contrary to the records. The
respondents examined P.W.2, an independent eye-witness to prove that the
accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of
the bus. The driver of the bus or the appellant did not give any complaint
against the rider of the motorcycle or file any objection to the contents of
F.I.R. being registered against the driver of the bus. Further, the appellant has
not examined any independent witness to substantiate their case. The Tribunal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.477 of 2021
considering the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and F.I.R., held that the accident has
occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus
belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation. There is no error in the said
finding of the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court.
11.As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the respondents
claimed that the deceased was working as a Noon Meals Organiser and was
earning a sum of Rs.7,500/- per month at the time of accident. They examined
the Junior Assistant in the Block Development Office as P.W.3 and marked
the salary certificate of the deceased as Ex.P10 to prove the avocation and
income of the deceased. The Tribunal considering the evidence of P.W.3 and
Ex.P10, fixed a sum of Rs.7,468/- as monthly income of the deceased,
granted 30% enhancement towards future prospects and awarded
compensation towards loss of dependency, which is not excessive. The total
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is also not excessive warranting
interference by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.477 of 2021
12. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the
sum of Rs.11,59,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the
respondents along with interest and costs is confirmed. The
appellant/Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the entire award
amount along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if
any, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. On such deposit, the respondents 1 and 3 are permitted to
withdraw their respective share of the award amount, on the basis of
apportionment fixed by the Tribunal, along with proportionate interest and
costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn. The share amount of the
minor/2nd respondent is directed to be deposited in any one of the
Nationalised Banks till the minor attains majority. The 1st respondent being
mother of the minor/2nd respondent is permitted to withdraw the accrued
interest once in three months for the welfare of the minor. No costs.
26.02.2021
Index : Yes / No
kj
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.477 of 2021
V.M.VELUMANI,J.
Kj
To
1.The Special District Judge
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Krishnagiri.
2.The Section Officer
VR Section
High Court
Madras.
C.M.A.No.477 of 2021
26.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
